December 19, 2006

Dying For Denial

"The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion."

No. I'm sorry. But no, no, no.

If there were some reason to think that a "surge" of troops really would change things for the better, then I would be on board -- as I've said all along, I think we have very serious responsibilities to the Iraqis, and if sending more troops to Iraq, in the numbers that seem to be in any sense possible, would help us to meet them, then so be it.

But there is no reason to think that a surge will do any good at all; and there are a lot of reasons to think that it might make things worse. The Joint Chiefs point out some of them in the Post article:

"The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home."

There are, of course, more reasons. As Pat lang and Ray McGovern point out, "major reinforcement would commit the US Army and Marine Corps to decisive combat in which there are no more strategic reserves to be sent to the front." Those troops will be fighting under constraints imposed by an Iraqi government that seems to be unwilling to allow them to act freely -- e.g., to take on the Mahdi army. This is perfectly understandable, since al Sadr is part of the government, but it means that whatever troops we do send will be operating under serious constraints that are not conducive to success.

Then there's the little matter of breaking the Army. Colin Powell says it's already broken, and I trust his judgment on this one. But that doesn't mean that sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq can't break it some more.

This point (from the Post article) is the most important of all:

"[T]he Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives (...)"

For the White House to consider sending troops to Iraq without having a clear mission in mind, because they can't think of anything better, is just shameful. George W. Bush has spent his entire life not having to bear the consequences of his own failures. Back in what might charitably be called his business career, those consequences were financial, and they were borne by rich people who were willing to accept them for reasons of their own. Now, Bush is proposing to avoid recognizing that he has failed again by asking young men and women to lay down their lives, without having bothered to come up with a clear idea of what they are supposed to be doing. Children will grow up without a parent; soldiers will have to spend months in Walter Reed learning to live without an arm or a leg; people who have suffered traumatic brain injury will have to figure out how to go on when they can't remember simple things, or concentrate, or control their moods; and for what?

Not so that we can actually achieve some tolerable result in Iraq; not to defend our country and its interests; but to allow George W. Bush to go on for another year or so without admitting to himself that he has failed.

I'm with Scarecrow at FDL: The important question is not whether Bush will listen to the ISG report. He won't. The important question is: what should we, as a country, do when he decides to ignore the ISG report, the Joint chiefs, and the nation. Because it looks as though that's what he's about to do. And, as usual, someone will pay the price, but it won't be him.

***

And one more thing: Bush says that “I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume.” I devoutly hope that's not true, since only a sociopath could sleep easily in his circumstances.

Comments

I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam War. There was too much concern in the White House about political standing.

Maybe up to 500000 Iraqis already slaughtered and many more sure to follow, and all these corpse are attributable to the actions of a single man. Yet despite all of this, this man manages to sleep quite well. Do you really believe this kind of man gives a fuck about a couple more dead American soldiers or what the American public in general thinks about this whole endeavor? It's only about him and his wishes and it was always that way.

Descent of the Dollar ...Swopa of Needlenose, and while he is not one of my usual authorities, I find nothing much wrong in the article. But this is the graf:

"That leaves Saudi Arabia as the big kahuna sticking with the dollar (which could also explain the recent supplicatory visit by the Vice-President). Moving away from dollar for the Saudis is a two-step process since the rial is pegged to the US dollar, so that's unlikely to happen unless the dollar really tanks."

Of course the Far East economies have high dollar reserves, but the Saudis (with the Chinese) are a major source of support for the dollar.

Point is:the Saudis have told us to stay in Iraq. Leaving aside the consequences of withdrawal for Iraqis;leaving aside the possible regional chaos; the economic consequences of alienating the Saudis scare me enough to worry about withdrawal.

From the perspectives of Bush and Cheney withdrawal or de-escalation may not be an option. Now if the JCS don't think a surge would help...and I really think they are trying to prevent a renewed air campaign...what would the JCS recommend, given that withdrawal and losing are not an option, and time is running out on stay-the-course?

The blog ate my comment but I tried to link to an MSNBC report that the US was sending a second aircraft carrier group to the Gulf ostensibly for "gunboat diplomacy." I wondered if anyone thought the Iranians would be intimidated enough by the second carrier group to capitulate to our demands. I thought not, and surmised that the only reason to send one is to use it.

But on the other hand, he quickly expressed his fealty to Cheney: "Mr. Vice President, thank you for administering the oath of office. I first worked closely with the Vice President when he was a very successful Secretary of Defense, and I hope some of that may rub off."

If half of the GOP Congressmen decide that Bush has to go -- for the good of the party, or the good of the country -- then you could measure Bush's and Cheney's remaining term in office in days. The only question at that point would be who to appoint as the caretakers of the Presidency until 2008.

Actually impeachment merely requires a pair of votes -- one in the House, one in the Senate. (I believe it requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate). If you have the votes, the debate, the reasons -- it's window dressing.

Do I think the GOP will come to that view? Only if Bush starts a war with Syria or Iran. And even then, maybe only if he authorizes the use of tactical nukes.

Spartikus: the Constitution doesn't establish any time limits: it's basically up to Congress to decide how fast or slow to move. If a bipartisan consensus exists that the President needs to go, I think the process could move very quickly.

Monday, August 5th: The "smoking gun" transcripts that show Nixon ordering Haldeman to obstruct justice are released to Congress.

Tuesday: Nixon tells Cabinet and his family that he will not resign. Meanwhile (my recollection) a growing number of Republicans announce that they can no longer support the president.

Wednesday: Nixon meets with the House and Senate minority leaders and Senator Barry Goldwater. My recollection from later news reports was that Goldwater told Nixon that there were now only two votes against conviction in the Senate, and Goldwater wasn't going to be one of them. Essentially, he told Nixon that his choice was to resign and keep his pension, or be convicted and lose it.

Now admittedly, a lot of that was happening outside the official process, but if Nixon had decided to tell them to go to hell, I don't think it would have taken very long to complete the process. With a 98-2 consensus for conviction in the Senate, they could have streamlined the process quite a bit.

The GOP will countenance impeachment only if Cheney becomes President - even if only long enough to appoint a Veep, to ensure that Pelosi doesn't become President.

Leaving Cheney in office is no gain for the country: he'll pursue the same policies as Bush. Maybe worse ones, like bombing Iran.

Impeaching Bush while leaving Cheney in office doesn't gain the GOP very much politically, either, except in the very short term (i.e., keeping Pelosi out). They'll still be going into 2008 with a thoroughly discredited President as their Party leader.

No, the only thing the GOP can do is hang onto Bush and Cheney, and hope the situation in Iraq stays as it is long enough for them to hand the war over to someone else. If a Democrat wins in 2008, then the GOP will blame him or her for "losing" Iraq. If a GOP candidate wins in 2008, then the GOP will excuse whatever that person does or doesn't do as "the best that could be done, given the situation."

The important question is: what should we, as a country, do when he decides to ignore the ISG report, the Joint chiefs, and the nation.

...

Impeachment

...

It can be long and drawn out, or VERY short.
It depends entirely on how the GOP feels about it.

...

No, the only thing the GOP can do is hang onto Bush and Cheney, and hope the situation in Iraq stays as it is long enough for them to hand the war over to someone else. If a Democrat wins in 2008, then the GOP will blame him or her for "losing" Iraq. If a GOP candidate wins in 2008, then the GOP will excuse whatever that person does or doesn't do as "the best that could be done, given the situation."

What everyone else said.

The GOP is the only possible check on Bush lunacy, and it seems invested in the CaseyL strategy. After all, these are the same folks busy telling themselves that the "surge" makes sense because it was Congress that lost the Viet Nam War in 1975 since it would not appropriate another $700,000,000 in April, 1975 as the South circled the drain. (It is scary how many conservatives, including Charles, believe this utter mind rot).

In other words, people looking for insane reasons to justify an insane policy. The "urge to surge" is about finding something that enables them to avoid going from "we are not winning but we are not losing" to "we have lost." It does not matter that the "surge" has no defined mechanism for accomplishing anything -- its only purpose is as a tool for collective denial while buying time to find a political line for blaming someone else.

So "what should we do" -- denounce in the strongest terms those reponsible. This is not a time in which bipartisanship will solve anything. We are dealing with cornered rats -- treat them like that, and hopefully the country will stop drinking their kool aid.

Whether it’s sociopathy or just an iron will to denial, but we’re certainly all captives of this one deficient personality. I doubt anybody imagines that after he leaves the Presidency, he could have the grace or guilt or self-awareness, like Lyndon Johnson, to just will himself to die. No, this won’t break him. Still, stripped of the temporary mystique of office, ex-Presidents begin to look different, if not exactly find their natural level, & this one’s triviality will at long last take people’s breath away. He’ll be with us, resolutely, trivially in denial, for a long, long time. Can someone describe his post-Presidency – give him, say, 20 years – in 1000 words?